The right of each individual to live within a free society requires each individual to take responsibility for the acquisition of their needs without infringing on the rights of other individuals to do the same. Wealth is not distributed, it is acquired. Those who contribute more usually end up acquiring more. There is no 'fair share' to which any or all are entitled to. The wealth that exists within a Nation provides the opportunities for others to use their abilities to acquire their own wealth. Government redistribution of wealth only results in more fully consuming what is already being produced. More competition, new and/or improved products and/or services produce greater employment and result in the acquisition of wealth by others. Government should be assuring an environment which allows competition by which U.S. citizens can thrive both nationally and world wide.
I think you're getting a little off topic. I agree that every individual has a right to choose to be employed or unemployed, but only if they accept the consequences fully.
Acquired or produced... but yes. I agree with this. Government is a mechanism by which the people of a nation manage their relationship with each other. And that relationship has many facets. I agree it's good for us to create opportunity and incentive for innovation, but that collective need has to be balanced with the rights of the individual. Reaching that balance can be difficult when a man's right to keep what he built or bought conflicts with a communities desire to "fully consume" the stuff built or bought within it's borders. Both have to offer some compromise at that point. It's messy, but that's life for you.
Fine, I agree both the employer and the employee should be equally free to terminate employment, recognizing the fact that they no longer have any further responsibility to one another for their continued survival.
You already admitted you don't claim morals. That is a good reason to deny and disparage you in the use of Arms. How many are hurt when the least wealthy use their ebt cards to buy steak and lobster. - - - Updated - - - It is about equal protection of the law. Currently, only employers may fire a person in order for a person to collect unemployment compensation. That is no equal protection of the law in any at-will employment State.
We have unemployment compensation as a form of social safety net. Are you going to stop complaining about our exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty? Or, do you merely indulge a moral of bad will toward men in modern times in the largest economy in the world. Why not end the survival of the drug war, instead.
The law needs no protection, only to be applied equally to all. Of course only employers can fire a person, and those who become unemployed through no fault of their own are entitled to unemployment compensation. If someone has a job and decides to quit or is fired for fault of their own making they are not entitled to unemployment compensation and that is a just consequence.
Yes, we have unemployment compensation as a form of social safety net, which is supposed to provide some support while the unemployed seeks new employment. Why would I want to stop complaining about our 'exorbitantly expensive' war on poverty? The fact that it has continued to grow more 'exorbitantly expensive' is an excellent reason for complaining. Or, I will continue to complain about 'exorbitantly expensive' so called entitlement programs created by our Federal government. I have no complaints about the war on drugs, the war on crime, or the war on terror, those are wars I cannot fight alone while poverty is something I can, as each individual should and probably a great many more would if the Federal government did not keep trying to create more equality between the working class and the non-working class inhabitants of the U.S.
How is that equal protection of the law regarding employment at will for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism. It only engenders litigation for "wrongful termination". - - - Updated - - - The point is we would not need a War on Poverty that the Right, likes to whine so much about; and, all that is required is sufficient moral of goodwill toward men to faithfully execute our own laws.
This threads topic was Wealth Distribution, however... Unemployment compensation is meant to provide some income to a person who has become unemployed through no fault of their own. If you choose to quit your job, you have become unemployed by your own choice and are therefore NOT entitled to unemployment compensation. It has nothing at all to do with employment at will. If employment was at will or not, wrongful termination can be litigated, but if you choose to quit your employment you've exercised a choice for which you alone have accepted responsibility. Maybe you should first read and try and understand the laws before you start to whine so much about them. If you're unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions, don't demand or expect others to assume responsibility for you.
Solving simple poverty and a poverty inducing, natural rate of unemployment is about wealth distribution. Only the Right doesn't seem to understand the concepts or the terms. Can the Right explain how we would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will?
No, it's more about putting forth the effort to earn what is needed to move out of poverty. Those who possess wealth are a source from which income can be produced. There lies the opportunity for those who wish to acquire wealth as a result of their creativity. You've asked that same question in numerous threads, and it has been answered. If you need more in depth explanation then create a new thread topic and clearly explain what it is you need explained. Perhaps you might want to look at the wording of your question "equal protection of the law" too, and either change that or explain what you mean by it.
How does that solve for a natural rate of unemployment? You must realize that a natural rate of unemployment precludes your right wing fantasy, even if everyone obtained a doctorate. I believe this is a simple concept; why doesn't the Right? Can the Right explain how we would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will?
The natural rate of unemployment? Is that your term for overpopulation? A doctorate is not a solution, but a job would be. There you go with that same question which has been answered in several different threads, and either go look for the answers in the other threads you've asked it or create a single NEW thread to try and get an answer you might understand.
Nothing but diversion? We are referring to wealth distribution, not demographics. No, you haven't answered this question or I would not be asking for a rational answer: Can the Right explain how we would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will? Why not answer it now, with a more cogent response.
When you refer to the wealth distribution is wealth not the quantifiable statistic being applied to the population demographically? Read my post #418 in the thread "Taxation and Wealth" If that answer does not satisfy your question, then please do, as suggested previously, begin a thread with your question clearly and concisely describing the topic. That way you might find others also willing to help provide you with a satisfactory answer without detracting from many other thread topics.
It is only incidental, and not the cause. You are being disingenuous, since wealth distribution has to do with public policy and not population demographics; providing for the general welfare, in this case. This is the question: Can the Right explain how we would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will? Post 418 in Taxation and Wealth does not address that issue. Why not answer it now; or are you merely being disingenuous. Do you not know or understand your argument well enough to post it every time it comes up, like I usually do. In this case, my question is relevant to wealth distribution as well. Why not answer the question in every thread, if you actually have a rational rebuttal, instead of being disingenuous about it and resorting to diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.
Wealth distribution has to do with public policy? And providing for the general welfare as it was meant to be interpreted by whom? Like I said, start a thread if you wish to continue to ask the same question over and over, and lack the ability to understand the answers given you. I'm satisfied with the answer given, considering that you refuse to respond to any questions I ask along with my responses. Wealth is distributed as a result of the activities of each individual. The use to which you put your physical and mental labours results in the wealth you acquire and accumulate or divest.
This is becoming more obvious to the most common person in a country to be false. If people were fairly distributed wealth by what they earn, no one could possibly be a billionaire.
Why not try a sound line of reasoning instead of always appealing to ignorance. Our War on Poverty is a public policy. Any more diversions? Can the Right explain how we would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will?
You an only reason with those who are reasonable. Your emboldened words make very little sense, and you seem to ignore any request to clarify them. If all you mean is that you should be entitled to unemployment compensation when you quit a job, then we would be worse off because unemployment compensation is intended to provide some income to those who lost their job for no reason of their own making. If you don't like your job, find a new one and then quit, or ask your employer if he/she could find a way to let you go amicably.
